eul_get_document

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that the return format is Markdown, that section extracts a portion with accepted patterns, and that save_path is an export-only side effect. It does not discuss errors, limits, or file overwrite behavior, but core behavior is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences front-load the purpose, then cover partial extraction and export behavior with no filler. Each sentence earns its place and examples are compact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a get-by-identifier tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: identifier format, return format, section behavior, and save_path semantics. Slight gap: no mention of what happens on invalid CELEX numbers or very large documents, but this is not critical for correct selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete accepted section formats ('Art. 5', 'Artikel 5', 'lines:100-200') and clarifying save_path is for export only, going beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve EU legislation from EUR-Lex by CELEX number', with concrete examples (GDPR, InfoSoc). This clearly distinguishes a get-by-CELEX operation from search-oriented siblings such as eul_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for invocation: use a CELEX number, use section for partial content, and use save_path only for file export. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the conditions are strongly implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.